Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 · Chapter XVI: Complaints to Magistrates
Section 223: Examination of complainant
In plain words
When taking cognizance on a complaint, the Magistrate must examine the complainant and any witnesses present on oath, record the substance, and have it signed. Cognizance cannot be taken without giving the accused an opportunity to be heard.
- No examination is needed if a public servant acting officially or a court made the written complaint, or if the case is handed over to another Magistrate.
- For a complaint against a public servant about official duties, the public servant must first be given a chance to explain, and a report from their superior must be received.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
(1) A Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:
Provided that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard:
Provided further that when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses—
(a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or
(b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 212:
Provided also that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under section 212 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them.
(2) A Magistrate shall not take cognizance on a complaint against a public servant for any offence alleged to have been committed in course of the discharge of his official functions or duties unless—
(a) such public servant is given an opportunity to make assertions as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged; and
(b) a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to such public servant is received.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 12 September 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 223
-
Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr.
The present appeal has been filed challenging the ex-parte judgment and order dated 16.04.2009 passed by the High Court acquitting the respondent no.1-accused u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and…
-
Dhanasingh Prabhu v. Chandrasekar & Another
Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the name of the partnership firm was not mentioned in the statutory notice issued by the appellant/complainant to the respondents u/s.138…
-
Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal
Whether the High Court can invoke its inherent jurisdiction u/s.482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or s.528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash proceedings initiated u/s.12, Protection of Women from…
-
Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement
An opportunity of being heard was not given by the Special Judge to the appellant-accused before taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint. Whether opportunity of being heard is required in terms of the proviso…
- Sanjay Aggarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Rachit Kapoor v. Union of India Through Prime Ministers Office Mr Pk Mishra